Steelworkers Renew Call for Public Inquiry Following Release of WorkSafe Document
Prince George, B.C. – The United Steelworkers are demanding a public inquiry regarding an internal document circulated by WorkSafeBC two months prior to the deadly explosion that claimed two lives at the Lakeland sawmill in 2012.
Obtained through a Freedom of Information Request, the document states the agency was concerned that an enforcement strategy to address wood dust in sawmills would lead to industry pushback.
It was dated February 27, 2012 and was written about a month after the deadly sawmill explosion at Babine Forest Products.
Despite acknowledging the potential of wood dust to act as a fire and explosion cause, and noting a number of dust related fires and explosions in the preceding years, the document stated:
“Industry sensitivity to the issue given the recent event and limited clarity around what constitutes an explosion could lead to push back if an enforcement strategy is pursued at this time.”
The Lakeland Mill exploded 56 days later.
“Premier Christy Clark made a promise to the families who lost loved ones in these explosions that there would be justice and answers forthcoming. To date, there has been neither,” says Stephen Hunt, USW director for western Canada.
“This internal document clearly demonstrates that WorkSafeBC was more concerned about pushback from industry CEOs than the health and safety of workers. If this does not call for a public inquiry, I don’t know what does.”
WorkSafeBC says they don’t understand why the Steelworkers are making a big issue of the document considering it was available at the coroner’s inquests.
“The internal memo drafted by regional prevention manager Barry Nakahara was written within five weeks of the tragic Babine mill incident,” says Scott McCloy, director of government and media relations.
“Mr. Nakahara’s memo – the longer version, was included in material provided to the Coroner prior to the Lakeland inquest and all parties to the inquest, including Steelworkers’ counsel, had access to it as part of the inquest disclosure process.”
Comments
Comments for this article are closed.